Thursday, 27 November 2014
In continuance of my previous posting OPEN LETTER TO FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS I’m able to bring readers an update.
I sent Deputy Lewis the open letter on the 11th November where I pointed out the contradictory statements he had made concerning his sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report and its alleged contents.
In that open letter I asked the Deputy to help clear up his contradictions and politely asked him four questions;
"Question 1. Could you please tell me which account is correct? The account you gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review or the account you gave to the in-camera States debate? Did you, or did you not see the MET Interim Report?
Question 2. Could you please tell me (if you did see the MET Interim Report) do you stand by your words “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal?”
Question 3. Could you please tell me who is being dishonest here, is it you or the IPCC?
Question 4. Have you been asked, or have you offered to, submit evidence to the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC, if not, why not?"
After four days of not receiving and acknowledgement of my e-mail I sent him a polite reminder on the 15th November I wrote;
Just a polite reminder that I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement of my e-mail and the answers to my questions.”
Another three days passed and I still had no response so I politely e-mailed him again. On the 18th November I wrote;
It has now been a week since my original e-mail and this is my third attempt at getting the answers to my questions.
Would you kindly acknowledge my e-mail(s) and supply me with those answers before I am forced to make a complaint to PPC concerning your conduct?”
It then happened that I bumped into Deputy Lewis three days later, which is explained in the e-mail I sent him the same day (9 days and three e-mails since my original e-mail to him. On the 21st November I wrote;
After our chance encounter at the Royal Court (Wednesday 19th) where you told me "I have no intention of acknowledging your e-mails" and where I replied "does that mean I have to make a complaint to PPC" you replied "please do."
As much as I have resisted going down the PPC complaints route you have left me no option by refusing to acknowledge/answer my e-mails and the perfectly legitimate questions contained in them.
I have demonstrated that I have done all that I can in order to give you the opportunity to answer my (public interest) questions and you have refused to engage.
With that in mind, and for the purpose of my Blog, you have left me no other choice other than to doorstep you. I very much regret that you have taken the stance that you have and hope that you will reconsider it by answering my four questions?
If I have not received the answers to my questions by 5pm today I will conclude that you are maintaining your stance and I will (regrettably) set about contacting PPC in order to register my complaint against your code of conduct. Regrettably again I will then have to doorstep you.”
Finally this prompted a response Where Deputy Lewis replied;
“Further to your recent emails and our brief encounter last Wednesday. I am happy to give you the courtesy of an acknowledgement to your email. However I have no interest in engaging with you on this subject, it no longer forms part of my remit I would therefore suggest that should you remain so firmly interested in this matter that you make contact with the newly appointed Home Affairs Minister.
This is the last and only communication I intend to have with you so please take no offence if you decide to try and communicated with me any further as you will not receive a reply.”
To which I replied;
“Thank you for your reply.
It could be that I haven’t made my position clear enough and apologise if this is the case.
In basic terms my concern is that you are not displaying the transparency and integrity required by the Code of Conduct for States Members and I do not plan to engage you in long correspondence.
It is just that statements you have made appear to be incompatible with each other, which trouble many of my Blog readers worldwide, and domestic as well as the Jersey voting public. I am not seeking a general engagement with you but offering you a fair opportunity to answer a specific point. Rather than have a long drawn out correspondence I invite you to end the matter, not by refusing to engage but by providing an explanation to your contradictory statements?
Deputy you are a paid public servant and your blank refusal to address a specific issue, which has caused a number of people to doubt your integrity, is not acceptable in a democracy and contrary to the Code of Conduct for States Members.
I hope we can clear this up without going down the PPC and door-stepping route and look forward to your reply/answers to my four questions.
If I have not received the answers to my questions by 5:00pm Monday (24th) I will assume you don’t intend answering them and will pursue my complaint to PPC/door-stepping.”
So that is where we are at, that I believe I have done all in my power to get answers to perfectly legitimate, and public interest questions, from Deputy Lewis and he refuses to engage.
Should members of the public, in a so-called “democracy” have to go to such lengths in order to get a straight answer to a straight question from our elected representative(s)? Deputy Lewis’ honesty and integrity will remain in doubt for as long as he refuses to explain his contradictory statements. His (illegal?) suspension of the former Police Chief will remain surrounded by suspicion until these, and other questions are answered.
Readers are reminded that Deputy Lewis suspended the former Chief Police Officer DURING the biggest Child Abuse Investigation this Island has ever seen with the only significant Ministerial decision he made during his very short tenure as Home Affairs Minister.
There are continuing suspicions that his actions in relation to Mr. Power’s (illegal?) suspension were part of a series of acts calculated to close down the Child Abuse Inquiry. Again these suspicions will remain prevalent until Deputy Lewis explains his actions.
There is hope that the ongoing Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will take an interest in his actions and what impact they had on the (people who really matter here) Victims/Survivors of decades long Child Abuse.
Readers will be kept updated on the complaint to PPC/door-stepping.
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
The local State Media has BURIED VITAL DOCUMENTS concerning the suspension of Mr. Power. It has buried public interest and VITAL NEWS STORIES (published by Bloggers) that expose the Jersey cover-up. The local State Media has even gone so far as to PROMOTE HATE SITES attacking a journalist investigating the Jersey cover up. Yet now that there is a Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry on the Island the Bloggers are BANNED FROM EFFECTIVELY REPORTING FROM IT in favour of the State Media.
We understand that former Chief Officer, Mr. Power, has been
It is believed that the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will be looking at the (illegal?) suspension of Mr. Power and with the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis (who suspended the Chief Officer) now back in the Island's Parliament after recently being elected in St Helier District 3/4 we have sent him an open letter (e-mail) in the hope he can clear up some of the mess he created and explain some of the anomalies in his contradictory statements.
E-MAIL TO Deputy Andrew Lewis.
Now that you are once again a States Member I am hoping you are able to clear up a few anomalies left over since you were last in the States Assembly back in 2008.
It concerns your suspension of the (then) Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) the Island has ever seen.
In an in-camera States debate (2008) http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-transcript-of-in-camera-debate.html in explaining your decision to suspend the Chief Police Officer you told the Assembly;
“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”
Further during the in-camera debate in answer to a question from former Deputy Paul Le Claire you told the States Assembly;
"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”
You were referring to the alleged MET Interim Report .So it is clear by these statements that you had read the MET interim Report. But in the Napier Report (paragraph 101) it states;
“As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have
access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”
Furthermore, according to the former Chief Police Officer Mr. Power your testimony to the discredited Wiltshire Constabulary’s Investigation stated;
“Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.)
In February 2010 you issued a statement http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/09/napier-report-imminent.html in response to the former Chief Police Officer’s Affidavit http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/02/copy-of-affidavit-of-chief-police.html where you wrote;
“I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code.”
It has been reported that Mr. Power is in the process of giving a comprehensive statement to the lawyers of the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) and he will be called to give evidence at a public hearing. It is also believed that his suspension is being looked at by the COI and you clearly have questions to answer in this regard.
UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY ONE
UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY TWO
UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY THREE
UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY FOUR
UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY FIVE